Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

There is currently an art project underway called the walk. It involves a 3.5 metre tall puppet of a refugee girl, called Amal, walking across Europe from the Syria/Turkey border to Manchester in England. A couple of hours ago "she" reached the campus of the University of Kent in England and I went there to have a look. Here's a picture:

Amal2.jpg (41.11 KiB) Viewed 6237 times

The idea is to raise awareness of the plight of refugees. Obviously this isn't the first time that art has been used to raise awareness of social and political issues. Striking artistic images can have the power to grab people's attention in a way that news stories often can't.

Is this a good role for art? Or would you rather art confined itself to being aesthetically pleasing? Do you actually regard this as art?

[Pattern-chaser]

Art is rightfully political, just as every non-trivial subject has a political aspect.

[LuckyR]

Currently some art is political and some isn't. I think that is the way it aught to be.

[Count Lucanor]

It depends on what we call "art". I would say that if the project described in the OP is art, it would be under the same classification as a newspaper cartoon, an article, a manifest, or an ad. They all have form and composition to convey a message, being the message (content) its main reason for being created.

Surely, political messages are conveyed this way all the time.

[Steve3007]

It depends on what we call "art". I would say that if the project described in the OP is art, it would be under the same classification as a newspaper cartoon, an article, a manifest, or an ad. They all have form and composition to convey a message, being the message (content) its main reason for being created.

Yes, I think it's closely related to advertising. Clearly a lot of advertising is very artistically creative. And a lot of the things we tend to find aesthetically appealing in nature are advertising (birds' plumage and so on).

Surely, political messages are conveyed this way all the time.

Yes, so arguably political messages are also art.

[Count Lucanor]

It depends on what we call "art". I would say that if the project described in the OP is art, it would be under the same classification as a newspaper cartoon, an article, a manifest, or an ad. They all have form and composition to convey a message, being the message (content) its main reason for being created.

Yes, I think it's closely related to advertising. Clearly a lot of advertising is very artistically creative. And a lot of the things we tend to find aesthetically appealing in nature are advertising (birds' plumage and so on).

Surely, political messages are conveyed this way all the time.

Yes, so arguably political messages are also art.

Whether it is creative or not, doesn't seem to be a condition to be called art in this case. There's nothing particularly creative in a Nixon speech, a sign in a picket line, or the puppet of a refugee girl. It's just called "art" because it's a form composed to convey a direct message.

[Steve3007]

Whether it is creative or not, doesn't seem to be a condition to be called art in this case. There's nothing particularly creative in a Nixon speech, a sign in a picket line, or the puppet of a refugee girl. It's just called "art" because it's a form composed to convey a direct message.

Well, I don't know about that. I saw it up close and it was quite cleverly made and operated by the guy inside it (who appeared to be on stilts). If the creators weren't trying to make a point about refugees but decided to have it dancing around in an art gallery, I reckon we'd probably call it art.

[Count Lucanor]

Whether it is creative or not, doesn't seem to be a condition to be called art in this case. There's nothing particularly creative in a Nixon speech, a sign in a picket line, or the puppet of a refugee girl. It's just called "art" because it's a form composed to convey a direct message.

Well, I don't know about that. I saw it up close and it was quite cleverly made and operated by the guy inside it (who appeared to be on stilts). If the creators weren't trying to make a point about refugees but decided to have it dancing around in an art gallery, I reckon we'd probably call it art.

There are tons of things done cleverly, including a microchip and a car's interior accesories. Would that qualify as art, too?

[Count Lucanor]

BTW, about that last comment in your last post, it takes us to "Fountain". However, in that case the object in its original setting was not considered art, only (in a heated dispute) when it entered the art gallery to be exhibited.

[Steve3007]

BTW, about that last comment in your last post, it takes us to "Fountain". However, in that case the object in its original setting was not considered art, only (in a heated dispute) when it entered the art gallery to be exhibited.

I don't know without looking it up what the Fountain is that you're referring to but I understand the kind of art exhibit you're referring to. The kind where we only know it's art because it's in an art gallery. Like the infamous Carl Andre pile of bricks.

[Count Lucanor]

BTW, about that last comment in your last post, it takes us to "Fountain". However, in that case the object in its original setting was not considered art, only (in a heated dispute) when it entered the art gallery to be exhibited.

I don't know without looking it up what the Fountain is that you're referring to but I understand the kind of art exhibit you're referring to. The kind where we only know it's art because it's in an art gallery. Like the infamous Carl Andre pile of bricks.

It was Duchamp's famous ready-made: a common urinal. It was a scandal and thrown away as rubbish, but some years ago it was voted the most influential work of art of the 20th century. The key was the setting that gave meaning to the object being displayed, not the object itself, which nevertheless was cleverly designed.

[Xenophon]

There is currently an art project underway called. It involves a 3.5 metre tall puppet of a refugee girl, called Amal, walking across Europe from the Syria/Turkey border to Manchester in England. A couple of hours ago "she" reached the campus of the University of Kent in England and I went there to have a look. Here's a picture:

Amal2.jpg

The idea is to raise awareness of the plight of refugees. Obviously this isn't the first time that art has been used to raise awareness of social and political issues. Striking artistic images can have the power to grab people's attention in a way that news stories often can't.

Is this a good role for art? Or would you rather art confined itself to being aesthetically pleasing? Do you actually regard this as art?

I regard it as propaganda. Which I suppose one might define as political art one oneself deplores.

[Xenophon]

Art is rightfully political, just as every non-trivial subject has a political aspect.

Of course one could say the same about how everything is sexual, economic, race-related. It's a favorite gambit of profs in survey-level classes. One of those "cheeks-in-seats" tactics. to pimp-up enrollment for the department's enrollment. Just like how, when graduation time nears, dads and older male relatives take one aside to very seriously counsel, "Biff, has it ever occurred to you that everyone is a salesman?" In fine, the claim is true but not particularly informative.

[Xenophon]

There is currently an art project underway called. It involves a 3.5 metre tall puppet of a refugee girl, called Amal, walking across Europe from the Syria/Turkey border to Manchester in England. A couple of hours ago "she" reached the campus of the University of Kent in England and I went there to have a look. Here's a picture:

Amal2.jpg

The idea is to raise awareness of the plight of refugees. Obviously this isn't the first time that art has been used to raise awareness of social and political issues. Striking artistic images can have the power to grab people's attention in a way that news stories often can't.

Is this a good role for art? Or would you rather art confined itself to being aesthetically pleasing? Do you actually regard this as art?

Would crashing a car into Amal be terrorism or performance art? Or a fusion deed?